Followers

Sunday, December 30, 2018

Review of The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements by Henry J 5.0 out of 5 stars on Amazon.comEssential Reading for Revolutionaries - a masterpiece. August 30, 2018 Format: Paperback Verified Purchase

Revolutions and other mass movements all have commonalities, chief among them are the people who start and promulgate them. This short, concise book breaks down and organizes the characteristics of these people: The True Believers - and the movements they promote. This is a book of genius, comparable to ‘The Prince’ or ‘Rules for Radicals,’ in its simplicity and insights into human nature and organized political action. Hoffer wrote this book after the Second World War while the memories and realities of Fascism and Communism were very present.

If you’ve ever been part of a mass movement, or ever contemplated participating in one, this book will open your eyes to what you can expect as a mass movement gets underway and develops through its active phase. It’ll provide you with an understanding of the motivations and designs of the movement’s leaders, and insight into your own and your fellow believers’ psychology. If you have the ambition to be the next Christ or Hitler to lead a mass movement, this is your blueprint.

In summary:

I. THE APPEAL OF MASS MOVEMENTS The desire for change starts and lives in the hearts of frustrated people. Attached to this frustration these individuals possess a sense of power to accomplish great change. Faith in the future and the ability to project hope makes for receptivity to change. High hopes and dark endings incongruently go together. Belonging to a mass movement substitutes for deficiencies in the individual. Mass Movements compete with one another, and often are interchangeable. No movement is whole of a singular nature.

II. THE POTENTIAL CONVERTS The best and worst of society often determine the course of history - over the heads of the great middle. A society without the dregs may be peaceful and complacent, but lacking in the seeds for change. Here are the ranks of mass movement fodder:

New Poor: Memory of better times puts fire in their bellies.

Abject Poor: Too occupied with survival to organize. Discontent is high, however, when misery is still bearable.

Free Poor: Freedom creates and alleviates frustration. Fanatics fear freedom more than persecution. Equality and fraternity are preferred over freedom.

Creative Poor: The ability to create mitigates frustration; however, those whose creativity is fading, or those who didn’t quite achieve creative satisfaction, may seek escape in mass movements.

Unified Poor: Compact or tribal groups are relatively free of frustration. Mass movements often try to break down family units to feed the movement. Compact structures, like families in decline are, however, fertile ground for mass movements.

Temporary Misfits: Adolescents, unemployed, veterans, and new immigrants are unreliable supporters of mass movements; their frustrations abate once circumstances improve.

Permanent Misfits: The incurably frustrated can never have enough of what they really do not want anyway. They are likely to become the most violent true believers.

Inordinately Selfish: Those who have lost faith in themselves, look to attach to a holy cause; In compensation, they become champions of selflessness.

Ambitious with Unlimited Opportunity: Current actions are never enough; they possess excessive readiness for self-sacrifice.

Minorities Intent On Preserving Their Identity: These persons act as tribal groups and lack frustration.

Minorities Bent On Assimilation: These frustrated cannot get in the door of the established order.

Bored: These people are required in quantity for a successful mass movement; they’re looking for fulfillment in a meaningless existence.

Sinners: For the irredeemable, salvation can be found in losing oneself in a holy cause; they are willing to go to extremes.

Mass movements attract and hold followers by offering refuge from anxiety. Mass movements aim to infect people with a malady, then offer a cure. Hope comes in two forms: one immediate and one distant.

III. UNITED ACTION AND SELF-SACRIFICE The chief preoccupation of mass movements is to foster united action and self-sacrifice. For the individual to commit to self-sacrifice he must be stripped of his individual identity, and by ritual be associated with the movement.

To engage in dying or killing, the individual must suffer under the illusion of being a participant in a grand undertaking, or a solemn performance. Glory is theatrical.

The present must be deprecated, pushed off the stage, depicted as mean and miserable and held in utter contempt. In replacement, hope is assured for a better future. The frustrated individual is ready to die for what he wishes to have and wishes to be.

Mass movements strive to interpose a fact-proof screen between the movement’s faithful and the realities of the world, in a word: doctrine. The effectiveness of a doctrine is judged not on its validity or profundity, but on how well it insulates the individual from his self and the world.

The individual’s estrangement proceeds with intense passion and fanaticism. Mass movements prevent the achievement of internal balance for the fanatic individual, but perpetuate insecurity and incompleteness.

Unified individuals in a compact collective of a mass movement body are no longer frustrated. Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents. Mass movements can rise without a belief in God, but never without a belief in evil.

Unreasonable hatreds emerge as an expression of the frustrated individual’s effort to suppress his own shortcomings and self-contempt. Self hate emanates from feelings of helplessness, inadequacy, and cowardice, rather than justified grievances. The object of hate is often those other than the ones who committed the perceived wrongs. Committing grave injustices upon the object of hate re-enforces and fuels hate. A guilty conscience lies behind such acts, which demands even greater effort to demonize the hated to suppress this guilty conscience.

Estrangement of the self is required for selflessness and assimilation into the whole of a compact group. The True Believer sees himself as one of ‘the chosen.’ Self-denial and group membership confers the right on them to be harsh upon others, and by which to be rid of personal responsibility. Violence is not the product of leadership, but of a unification of the whole.

Propaganda succeeds not with unwilling minds, but with frustrated individuals. Propaganda operates most effectively in conjunction with coercion. The mass movement requires the ability to make people believe, and by force as a last resort.

Leadership cannot create a mass movement out of thin air. There has to be grievances with intense dissatisfactions and an eagerness of the True Believers to follow and obey. Once the stage is set, however, an outstanding leader is indispensable. The leader personifies the certitude of the movement, as well as defiance and power. He must be able to steer the faithful and maintain its cohesion. To a large degree, charlatanism is required for effective leadership.

Action is a unifier of mass movements. Marching, for instance, kills thought and hastens the end of individuality. An inability to act breeds frustration with the movement, while successful action drains energy and commitment from the movement.

The mass movement must perpetuate the individual’s incompleteness and insecurity.

IV. BEGINNING AND END Men of Words: Mass movements usually rise when a prevailing order has been discredited. This is the work of men of words with a grievance. They set the groundwork for the movement by undermining existing institutions, promoting the idea of change, and creating a new faith. Men of words may champion the downtrodden, but the grievance that animates them is personal. Their vanity is greater than their ambitions; recognition and the appearance of power is preferred over power itself. Often it’s the men of words who are the tragic figures of the mass movement, as at a certain point, the movement is hijacked by a power hungry clique which usually cheats the masses of the freedoms they seek.

Fanatics: A genuine mass movement is hatched by the fanatic. Men of words shrink before the outbreak of anarchy, they forget the troubled masses they set out to help, and run to the protection of strong ‘men of action.’ For the fanatic, chaos is his element. Fanatics come from the ranks of the non-creative men of words; unfulfilled, they can never be reconciled with their self, and they desire not a finality or a fixed order of things. Hatred becomes a habit, and when the outsiders are vanquished, the fanatics then turn on themselves and threaten to destroy what they have achieved.

Man of Action: The movement begins with men of words, materializes by fanatics, and consolidated by men of action. With a balanced faith in humanity, men of action save the movement from the fanatics, marking the end of the dynamic phase of the movement. Men of action fix and perpetuate the movement’s unity and readiness for self-sacrifice. The new order is founded on the ‘necks of the people, rather than in their hearts.’ The man of action is a man of the law. The movement now becomes a means of self-realization for the ambitious. Concern for the frustrated is still there, not to harness their discontent, but to reconcile them with it; to turn them meek and patient with visions of distance hopes and dreams.

Good and Bad Mass Movements: No matter what good intentions a mass movement starts off with, or what benefit may result, it is hard not to see the active phase as unpleasant, if not outright evil. On the other hand, mass movements are a miraculous instrument for raising societies and nations from the dead.

Saturday, December 22, 2018

Thus free will is destroyed as we are but pawns to be re-educated. Our lives to be reshaped, reformed, or destroyed as the leader sees fit. I can scarcely think of a more utterly totalitarian idea.
This is not freedom, it is slavery. https://t.co/P3rGykrcXF

Sunday, December 16, 2018

Excerpt from Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith (page 169)

"The biblical portrait of Christian faith is far removed from the approach of modern liberals who represent Christianity as a reasonable, benevolent philosophy of life interested in the pursuit of truth. There is nothing reasonable about intellectual blackmail, nor is there anything benevolent about threats of violence. As for Christianity's alleged concern with truth, Christian faith is to free inquiry what the Mafia is to free enterprise. Christianity may be represented as a competitor in the realm of ideas to be considered on the basis of its merits, but this is mere disguise. Like the Mafia, if Christianity fails to defeat its competition by legitimate means (which is a foregone conclusion), it resorts to strong arm tactics. Have faith or be damned-this biblical doctrine alone is enough to exclude Christianity from the domain of reason".

Saturday, December 15, 2018

"Primates are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based... ... metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, triploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelomate with a spinal cord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebral cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapodal skeleton with sacral pelvis, clavicle, and wrist and ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle." -Aron Ra

I will use this area as my thinking out loud. I am not sure all of my thoughts will be correct or will jive with logic. I hope so! But if you find me in error please let me know. You can leave a comment below or you can DM me on @apetivist or email me at apetivist@gmail.com⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺
Come to think of it man has been trying to save god(s) since the dawn of civilization but the more we learn the more we see god(s) shrink proportionally to our increased understanding of the Universe. How long will theologians and apologists pretend that they have anything of substance to hang their claim that a god(s) exists? -Apetivist
⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺
What is a god? Seriously. Has one ever showed up for verification? What qualities or characteristics does a god even have? Does having any characteristics limit a god then if so aren't theists putting their faith in something that can't even be specified? If a god is beyond human understanding then why do any theists think they have anything correct at all about any god? If something is beyond description then isn't it indistinguishable from that which does not exists? -Apetivist
⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺
Yahweh is supposedly omniscient. This implies that he is not capable of learning. It also means he is not capable of thinking as thought would imply that he has to think and since he knows everything that ever could possibly be known then God can't even be considered to be intelligent and even more so can't be considered a superintelligence. Intelligent design is therefore a misnomer as Yahweh can't adapt, learn, or change and thus he isn't even intelligent. Yahweh might as well be a non-being as it can't possibly have any personage nor can it be anything but a script running immaterial non-thingamabob. As an atheist I am left with no other choice than call Yahweh a defeated and contradictory concept. -Apetivist
⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺⸺

Assuming for the sake of argument that the god of Christianity (Yahweh) exists it is indeed a very petty deity.

He demands faith not only in him but also a itinerant preacher/messiah that supposedly existed over 2,000 years ago and yet he offers no evidence of his existence.

If you don't accept him on faith coming from hearing or reading dubious accounts from many second hand sources in a book that was translated and copied by the hands of infallible men then he will send you to Hell.

Worse you must also not just believe in him but get the right type of faith and process in spite of conflicting methods of salvation found in the Bible.

Choose the wrong Christianity and you are doomed! Not choosing Christianity and you are doomed!

Being told the Gospel and not accepting it because you find it an absurd story then you are doomed!

In addition to all this the Bible isn't clear as to the fate of the unevangelized. If we are to take the Bible on its silence on the matter then we are left with little choice but to also see that the unevangelized are also doomed!

Jesus never spoke about the age of accountability and so we are left wondering whether babies, adolescents, and (pre?)teenagers are also doomed if they don't become the right kind of Christian with the right kind of faith based on sheer luck of hearing it and recognizing it as something that is true even though they wouldn't even have the background knowledge as to what would constitute a justified belief in light of evidence or lack thereof to begin with.

Stack on top of all this that no self proclaimed Christian has any true knowledge of whether they themselves are actually saved. In fact it could very well be the case that most people that claim a faith in Jesus Christ could very well be doomed!

Sunday, December 9, 2018

"Religion is like looking at the Universe with a microscope and thinking that one has seen it all. Science is looking at the Universe with all tools and means available and never assumes it has seen it all." - @apetivist

“We may say to the Theist, You do not know the mystery of things, we do not know. Yet some advantage is ours. We know that you do not know ; we also know that we do not know, whereas you do not know that you do not know”.– (Excerpt The Trial of Theism page 16 by George Jacob Holyoake)The Trial of Theism is a Free Book on Google! I highly suggest it.

Note: When I refer to Yahweh I do not mean to suggest that he actually exists but for the purpose of thinking these problems through I assume he exists for the sake of argument.

According to Christian Eschatology there will be a New Heavens and New Earth.

Revelation 21:1;4: "Then I saw 'a new heaven and a new earth,' for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea...'He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away"

The question is if Yahweh could make such a world then why did he make the former world where there was suffering/evil? Why not avoid all the unnecessary suffering and jump to the perfect situation in the New Heavens and New Earth? If Yahweh were omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnisapient then he clearly would have done so.

What was there to gain in not doing so? It is illogical and inhumane of Yahweh to not have done so in the first place. If Yahweh does exist then I am left with no other conclusion that it is a malevolent deity and unworthy of adoration.

Is it not possible for Yahweh to have
created us all with a sense to do the right thing and also give us
the idea of what constitutes wrong things? If Yahweh created the
Universe as it is then he intended the world to have evil in light of
his omniscience. Free Will Defense is not a good excuse either.
Alvin Plantinga's argument states that "It is possible that God,
even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures
who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even
being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains
evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures." With
advances in neuroscience and physics we are beginning to see
indications that free will might be illusory and that indeterminism
actually means that we are not as in control of the electrochemical
reactions in our brain as we may think. This will make for another
discussion later.

But that means that Yahweh is not
omnipotent and it even calls into question his omnisapience. Surely
even I can imagine a world where humans could think of doing evil but
any attempt to carry it out would be thwarted by some measure. They
have the free will to act as they may but there would be no ill
effect on themselves or another if they so choose to do so.

Take an example regarding moral evil.
I decide I want to stab a person with a knife. But the moment I try
to do so the knife would dematerialize. Imagine that I try to push a
person down a flight of stairs and the moment I touch them my arm
passes right through them with no effect whatsoever. Evil could be
considered but not carried out with any effect. Eventually people
would realize how pointless evil would be. Free will should not be
so important that it takes away the free will of another person.

Equally I can imagine a world with no
moral evil or natural evil. Can’t we all learn the importance of
life without pain and suffering? We can challenge our character
without experiencing physical pain. There could always be challenges
but they need not involve suffering.

Why in the Garden was Adam and Eve
created ignorant of good and evil? Why couldn’t Yahweh have placed
that within them? Could he not of trusted his own creations to do
what was right? Especially if they knew what was right? Surely,
they could think of doing otherwise but as I said before they could
be physically prevented from ever carrying it out. In fact, they
could have knowledge of doing every act of evil imaginable but it
would only serve as a way to appreciate the good life that they had.

If I can imagine this can’t an
omnisapient and omniscient deity be able to do so? It seems that
Yahweh is more concerned with the free will of a rapist in our world
than the free will of the raped. In our world the toll and
consequences of moral and natural evil is beyond measure. Even if we
get a heaven later does that mean that we are properly compensated?
Even if compensation seems fair would that in and of itself rectify
the justification for evil in the first place?

If Yahweh knew all along that there
would be no evil or sin in the New Heavens and New Earth then why
didn’t he just make it that way to begin with? Skip to the end.
Why even create people that are destined for Hell? Why even create a
Hell? It is all so senseless especially given the so-called
omnisapience of Yahweh. It also paints Yahweh as being evil. Only
an evil deity would create a Universe where there is evil. An
omnibenevolent deity would never create a Universe whereby evil would
exist.

For those that say I’m being
idealistic then you forget that Yahweh is being idealistic with the
New Heavens and New Earth. It makes no sense whatsoever to put
trillions of animals through suffering if it never was necessary to
begin with. That is why I say that if Yahweh exists as described in
the Bible then he is a malevolent deity. We could imagine a Deistic
god though that is either unaware or apathetic of our existence.
This Deistic god could have just set things into motion and left it
all to play out perhaps to a desired end or to no ends whatsoever.

However, until we have any evidence of
a god of any sort then we are left with no other choice than to
withhold belief in such a being and go with what is available to us
through naturalistic observation and measurement. Science (hard and
soft and in-between such as psychology) and most of useful philosophy
helps us better understand the world around us in such a way that
religion could never have. It tells us that we live in a
naturalistic universe and there are physical causes for what happens.
If a person chooses or carries out involuntarily a moral evil
against another person it isn’t because of some demon compelled or
influenced them to do it is because that person is either
intentionally violent, mentally unstable, or mentally deficient to do
otherwise. What caused them to do it can be complex thus we have all
different fields of study that can help shed light on such reasons if
there are any to be discovered. It goes without saying that some
events happen for no apparent reason but that just means that
presently we don’t understand it and perhaps soon by asking the
right questions, research, and testing we may eventually know.

An omniscient and omnipotent deity
could well have created the Universe but without evidence of such we
are left with more questions. Why would this deity or deities place
us in a Universe where there would be suffering? If this deity is
omnibenevolent then what has it to gain in such a creation? The less
absurd hypothesis based on available evidence proposes we live in a
naturalistic universe. It may not be comforting for the religious to
entertain this but it does make more sense than the more complex
creator hypothesis. Occam’s Razor.

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

If Yahweh exists and he has all the
omni-properties associated with him as ascribed in the Bible then it
is unavoidable that he wanted us to live in a universe whereby
suffering would exist. Of all the possible universes that we found
ourselves we found ourselves in this one. If Yahweh is truly
omnipotent then he could have chosen for us a universe without
suffering. However, since we find ourselves in this universe then it
must have been Yahweh's plan for suffering to exist. If Yahweh is
truly omnibenevolent then this would not be the case. We are left
with no other logical conclusion than this all indicates that Yahweh
is a malevolent deity.

There can be no good reason for an
omnibenevolent deity to create a universe where suffering exists.
I've heard all the excuses laid out by apologists and none of them
address the obvious and all contradict the Law of Non Contradiction.
A is A. A is not B. These two propositions are mutually exclusive.
Yahweh can't be omnibenevolent and omnipotent and also create a
universe where there is suffering. Given this proof it follows:

a.
Yahweh is not omnipotent b. Yahweh is not omnibenevolent

c. Yahweh may be omnipotent but he is
malevolent

To argue that Yahweh is omnibenevolent
but created a universe where there would be suffering or has some
hidden reason why he allows suffering are also invalid arguments.
Additionally to claim that there is suffering because we have free
will is also an invalid argument. If Yahweh is omnipotent he could
have created us with no desire to do wrong by equipping us with
logical minds and he could also make it where no natural evil happens
and the world we live on is free from such disasters as earthquakes,
hurricanes, droughts, forest fires, etc. Additionally we could
obtain all the energy we needed from sunlight or be born with an
energy source already within us. There would be no need to consume
the cells of other living things to live. If I can think of this
clearly an omniscient, omnisapient creator deity can also think of
this and perhaps even better scenarios whereby suffering, natural
evil, death, pain, and disease would not exist.

#Apologists On some level already know they’re wrong. That’s why they tried to drag us down to their level. They accuse us of having #Faith But it never goes the other way around. We don’t accuse them of having #Reason

Sunday, September 30, 2018

Hold onto your hats as this will be a whirlwind of MetaChristianity displaying obfuscation, quote-mining, misrepresentation, and scholarly disregard for citing his sources as well as committing fallacious reasoning in the form of appeal to authority.

Note: My words/replies (apetivist) will be in purpleand his/her (Meta Christianity) words will be in red. Later my commentary will appear below the purple text and red text and will appear in white text.
-----------------

Are you trying to say that atheist don't have any convictions or morality? If anyone does anything that reduces or harms the well being of another person then it is technically evil. It doesn't matter the religious or non-religious beliefs of who does the evil.

My Commentary: I am correct in asking this question. As he did not state what was wrong with my question or added commentary but all he did was refer to two links.

MetaChristianity

‏Only addressing your claim of
“...technically evil...”

More and more Non-Theists such as
Carroll, Hume, Ruse, and Rosenberg give arguments to the contrary.

Again- he/she doesn't state any specifics but loosely points authorities saying something to the contrary. I really appreciate the vagueness of his/her replies. He/she is real busy sounding like he/she knows what he is talking about without pointing out specifically anything at all.

Apetivist

You have to give me examples and
provide the context. Citing where they said these things would also
be quite helpful.

I am asking for him/her to do more than provide what he/she has and in particular show specifically what he/she is trying to say in response to my questions and statements and in particular the context of these responses by said authorities.

MetaChristianity

‏No I don’t. They’ve robust and
honest arguments and of late the younger, braver Non-Theists are
eager to deconstruct, to get to the bottom line. Silliness like
Harris’ “I choose but I do not choose what I choose” quickly
shines and twice as quickly fades. Why? Well for reasons.👍

I am not surprised that he/she will not provide what I am asking for. Then he/she goes off into a diatribe about Sam Harris in an attempt to further distract from my requests.

Apetivist

‏So you won't cite where these claims
are made? Telling.

Need I say much more? If he/she really had the goods he/she would happily provide it.

MetaChristianity

‏1. The quotes were given earlier ➡️

http://disq.us/p/1titjw1

2. I’m satisfied if you’d like to
claim that they’re not actual quotes.

‏guess he won't so I've done research
on my own and have come across some level of quote mining and also
some appeals to authority. I will address all of this with proper
address of the quotes, context, and other implications regarding
morality. When complete I will post it to my blog and provide a link
in this tweet thread as well as a new tweet. This is all an example
of Brandolini’s Law – “The amount of energy needed to refute
bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
Alberto Brandolini @ziobrando

MetaChristianityGeneral
segue:—Prediction:

https://twitter.com/m_christianity/status/1045367816868761600?s=12
…

—Demonstration:

Present
premises and arguments with respect to Knowledge, Mind, Reason,
Perception, and Being as such relates to:

I’ve
clearly stated my goal of demonstrating that critics either avoid
Christian premises or dive in and tweak until a Christian X becomes a
Non-Christian X, and when called on it they level F-bombs &
insults.

If
you ever present one of these debunk-ing-Thingamajiggers........

Note that all of this is MetaChristianity's attempt to flood me with research over non-specific material in an attempt to not specifically respond to my questions, statements, and also by appealing to authority he feels no need to actually articulate his points. He fails to do anything but obfuscate. I will breakdown the following so to show that MetaChristianity is misrepresenting the quotes, taking them out of context or not even being interested in the context, and making appeal to authority that doesn't even address the questions or statements that I have made.

[1] “The
lack of an ultimate objective scientific grounding for morality can
be worrisome. It implies that people with whom we have moral
disagreements—whether it’s […insert any evil here…] or
schoolyard bullies who beat up smaller children—aren’t wrong in
the same sense that it’s wrong to deny Darwinian evolution or the
expansion of the universe….But that’s how the world is.”
(Sean Carroll)

I had to buy the book that this quote derives from- "The
Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe
Itself" by Sean Carroll. *As I type this I must read the entire book. In particular the chapter and paragraphs from which this quote is derived. This is all an example of Brandolini’s Law – “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” - Alberto Brandolini @ziobrandoThis is the advantage of dishonest people that can pump out material at breakneck speeds while those interested in honesty and scholarly debate must invest large amounts of time and effort to present their counter argument (example the 'Gish Gallop"). It makes the dishonest person seem more presentable but only to the misinformed mind and gives them only a momentary victory that will eventually be upended by the honest individual that wants nothing but the truth to prevail no matter where it will land.

I must go at great length to present what Sean Carroll is talking about and how he further addresses the topic of morality in his book. Even for those that can't or haven't bought the book there is information available in Amazon's "Look Inside" feature for the book that will present my case that MetaChristianity is not being forthright with his quote nor is he presenting the full case of Sean Carroll regarding the matter.

Here is the 'look Inside" using a key search function: The lack of an ultimate objective scientific grounding for morality In it you will clearly read that MetaChristianity left out some key text. This is preferential quote mining to make it look like Sean Carroll is making a cold statement about morality. Upon closer inspection one will see that Carroll is making a logical analysis about morality and the difficulty about doing experiments or syllogisms to support morality one way or another. He elaborates earlier by discussing the usage of instrumental rationality as a way to arrive at "ought issues" that aren't addressed in experimental science. He does admit that we must have a way of determining what it is that we want and providing logical reasons as to why we want those things (p. 401). Carroll goes on in chapter 39 to elaborate how we go about determining what is the kind of morality we should choose. This is largely based on Deontological and Consequentialist arguments. Deontology has to do with our ethical impulses and Consequentialism is concerned with systematic utilization of ethics. Most of our moral choices are based on either one or both of these ethical considerations.

Sean Carroll is not advocating for immorality or chaos or cold reckoning of materialism. He is advocating for a rational and useful morality that allows mankind to advance in a future of well being and social flourishing. Unlike religion that promotes rigid systems of rules and behavior- secular morality advocates a morality that maximizes the well being of others while protecting the rights of others to not be violated and if they are then there are laws to deal with the offenders. In the Bible we have a deity handing down rules that can't be questioned often to one person which can't be verified but secular morality is a consensus of a society about how they want themselves and others to be treated. The Bible doesn't give us the tools or philosophy with dealing with moral dilemmas nor does it provide the complex questions about why a person does what they do. These types of questions belong to science, philosophy, and psychology. Pretending that there are easy answers to every moral situation is fooling ourselves. If you don't know about it take the time to research the Trolly Problem. Rarely would we be faced with such extreme moral problems but every moral problem has its own degree of complexity and sometimes there are no easy answers.

[2] “Hume
was right. We have no objective guidance on how to distinguish
right from wrong: not from God, not from nature, not from the pure
force of reason itself….Morality exists only insofar as we make
it so, and other people might not pass judgments in the same way we
do.” (Sean Carroll)

Once again this is quote mining. See here at Hume was right. We have no objective guidance Why do some theists feel compelled to misrepresent what others say? If they had the truth on their side they wouldn't have to do this. It is underhanded to say the least. Additionally in Chapter 48 Carroll explains how we go about constructing rational moral arguments and systems. I wonder why MetaChristianity failed to use any quotes from this chapter? What I find hilarious is by quote mining and ignoring data that doesn't support his argument MetaChristianity actually embarrasses himself and equally strengthens the argument of the opposition. In the Age of Information a lie and disinformation may spread for a while but sooner or later somebody is going to pick it apart.

[3] “–
Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole
world to the scratching of my finger. -Tis not contrary to reason
for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of
an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. -Tis as little contrary
to reason to prefer even my own acknowledg’d lesser good to my
greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than for
the latter.” (Hume, Treatise of Human Nature 2.3.3.6)

Here MetaChristianity is isolating a quote to make it seem that Hume is some moral nihilist. When in reality Hume isn't speaking of morality but the distinction between passion and reason. If you don't believe me then check this free online file of Treatise of Human Nature and use keys Ctrl-F (find) on your keyboard and type in the words "Tis not contrary to reason" and it will take you to the actual quote and the surrounding context regarding the quote.

[4]
“Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and
sex and hating toothache and marking student papers. But it is, and
has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is
not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than
liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break
down. Before long, we would find ourselves saying something like:
“Well, morality is a jolly good thing from a personal point of
view. When I am hungry or sick, I can rely on my fellow humans to
help me. But really it is all bull___t, so when they need help I
can and should avoid putting myself out. There is nothing there for
me.” The trouble is that everyone would start saying this, and so
very quickly there would be no morality and society would collapse
and each and every one of us would suffer. So morality has to come
across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to
be objective, even though really it is subjective. “Why should I
be good? Why should you be good? Because that is what morality
demands of us. It is bigger than the both of us. It is laid on us
and we must accept it, just like we must accept that 2 + 2 = 4.”
I am not saying that we always are moral, but that we always know
that we should be moral. Am I now giving the game away? Now you
know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to
make you a social cooperator, what’s to stop
you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective
sense.” (Michael Ruse)

Once again, MetaChristianity is isolating a quote free from its context and surrounding words. MetaChristianity so wants to paint atheists as moral nihilists or immoral people incapable of making sound and ethical judgments. He really seems committed to grinding a non-existent axe. Feel free to read Michael Ruse's full article in The Guardian entitled God Is Dead. Long Live Morality. Ruse speaks of the reasons why morality is a natural part of our social interaction and that it is independent of a person's belief in a god. Ruse also refers to Hume in the article saying- "Am I now giving the game away? Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what's to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense. But you are still a human with your gene-based psychology working flat out to make you think you should be moral. It has been said that the truth will set you free. Don't believe it. David Hume knew the score. It doesn't matter how much philosophical reflection can show that your beliefs and behaviour have no rational foundation, your psychology will make sure you go on living in a normal, happy manner."

[5]
“Pressing on through Alex Rosenberg’s The
Atheist’s Guide to Reality,
we come to Rosenberg’s treatment of morality. Followed out
consistently, Rosenberg says, scientism entails nihilism. As
Rosenberg is keen to emphasize, this is not the same as moral
relativism or moral skepticism. It is not the claim that moral
truth is relative, or that it is real but unknowable. Nor is it the
claim that everything is morally permitted. It is a far more
radical and disturbing claim than any of these views. Nihilism, as
Rosenberg understands it, is the view that there is no
such thing as
being “morally permitted” or “morally prohibited” in the
first place. For there is, given Rosenberg’s scientism, no
intrinsic value in the world of the sort that is necessary for
morality to be intelligible. Morality — not just commonsense or
traditional morality, not just religious morality,
but all morality,
morality as
such,
including any purported secular, liberal, permissive morality —
is therefore an illusion.”
(…from http://edwardfeser.blogspot...etc…) And
perhaps: https://www.thinkingchristi...(...this
comment http://disq.us/p/1titjw1 ...)

I could not follow the link as my Webroot Antivirus warned me of possible malicious activity on the site linked as edwardfeser.blogspot. See jpeg below as evidence:

The remaining two links seem useless. One opens up to a strange defense of Christianity (see for yourself) and the other is a copy/paste of these same 5 points.However, I looked into Alex Rosenburg's position on scientism and nihilism and deferring to an expert in the field that does a far better job than I, Jeffrey Jay Lowder, explains what is wrong and/or weak about Rosenburg's argument. See link: Rosenberg's 2012 Argument for Nihilism Lowder points out that Rosenberg makes several statements that aren't true particularly toward what other atheists believe.

I think MetaChristianity should re-exam his/her "war" against atheism or atheists. Why must we be painted as some immoral "other"? I suspect it because he/she has bought into the idea that without his deity belief one can't be moral. This goes against almost everything we know about morality, psychology, science, and history. If this is not his/her grind against atheist/atheists then what would cause him to post such things?

I think this is about as exhaustive I will be regarding these quotes. If you have anything to add feel free to do so in the comments below.

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

If Yahweh exists and is omnipotent then we can extrapolate that he actually wanted a Universe whereby suffering and evil was inevitable. This puts the blame squarely on Yahweh not humans or any other beings.Fact: Christianity is in decline throughout the world. Fact: Islam will exceed Christianity by 2060Fact: Atheists have their work cut out for them.Keep fighting for Reason! Do not falter. Do not give up.Not even Jewish scholars can deny that Yahweh demanded child sacrifices in the Bible. Let the Christian apologetics begin.I know people that have told me that they are willingly never going to try to think critically about their beliefs. They outright refuse to have any kind of conversation regarding the beliefs.Not believing in macroevolution is like saying a person can walk the measurement of a foot but that successive accumulation of doing so over a period of time can never add up to a mile.